Werner Koch wrote: > On Thu, 26 May 2005 15:34:05 +0000, C D Rok said:
>>... open source solution for Windows already exists, see: >>http://www.truecrypt.org/ > > That is one of the problems with the term "open source": It does not > tell you whether it is Free Software. TrueCrypt for example is not FS > because you need to send all changes back to the authors. I have not > looked closer at the terms but that requirement alone is sufficient to > mark it as non-free. Agreed, TC is not FS. I use "open source" as a colloquial term and not as a designation of a particular application distribution licensing model. In this case it satisfies the most important "open source" test: a user can build his executable from the inspected source in his possession. *This* is a "sine qua non" for any crypto application; all other rights are - for the vast majority of users - of lesser consequence. > Frankly, I don't understand why the authors go this way. I believe I do, but it's not for me speculate in public. As long as the above condition is met, the authors of any crypto application should be free to opt for whatever licensing model ~they~ feel will provide the best solution for ~their~ application. CD Rok _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
